Obviously I ineffectively communicated my intent by using the term “military
training”. I also underestimated the willingness of trained shooters to
endure the risks presented by “gun idiots” (examples of which we have all
seen).
Give me enough credit for:
- understanding and despising government caprice and lies.
- wanting training that is cheap, meaningful, and readily available to all
persons, regardless of age, physical abilities, or disabilities (or “challenges”).
- never imagining that every person must go through full military basic
training, AIT, Airborne Ranger, Pathfinder, or whatever.
(Let’s drop that line of thought here.)
My choice of the “military” to teach firearms subjects was based upon:
- their experience and expertise with firearms and firearms safety. If not
perfect, it’s better than virtually all home-grown training.
- their available facilities and firearms which typically are under-utilized,
- their experience with students of varying knowledge, experience, and
abilities. Instructors could quickly learn how to modify training to cope with
students who are medically or physically “challenged”.
- subsidized costs. Training should not be only for those wealthy enough to
afford Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, etc. ((WARNING: If someone tries to tell
me, “If you can afford a gun you can afford the training,” I will go into a
long, boring, well-documented diatribe complete with listed dollar amounts!
Let’s not go there. ))
I freely admit I don’t like the concept of “mandatory” training, but:
- voluntary training is not working.
- home training is not working.
- too often training is simply not available for many people due to distance,
cost, or times involved.
- current training too often is erroneous, misleading, contradictory and/or
inadequate.
(Admittedly there are exceptions such as Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, etc. but
the rule is training is inadequate. Examples omitted for brevity, available
upon request.)
Training should be mandatory to fulfill the implied requirement of the
Second Amendment. “Well-regulated” (when it was written) meant
“well-trained” .
IMO training should include at least the following (not in this order):
- how to evaluate and choose a caliber, firearm, and ammunition;
- how to safely hold, check, clear, load, and unload a firearm;
- how to clean and properly maintain a firearm;
- all the safety rules appropriate to storage and typical use of firearms;
- conflict recognition, avoidance, and non-violent dispute resolution;
- types and escalation of force and deadly force;
- the difference between “justified” and “required” use of force;
- evaluation of shoot/no shoot situations, (e.g.. number, position, and intent
of attackers and how are they armed, number and position of bystanders,
possibility of escape, evaluation of various responses, who is doing what and
to whom, etc.);
- how to identify and correct common firearms malfunctions, without
endangering anyone in the immediate vicinity;
- how to clear a firearm and properly hand it to someone;
- the Eddie Eagle Program (or similar substitute) and dealing with children;
- range rules;
- shooting stances (e.g. dueling, isosceles, Weaver, etc.) and positions
(standing, kneeling, prone, and modifications);
- marksmanship (including stance, grip, sight picture, breath control, trigger
squeeze, evaluation of shot pattern/group, etc.)
- tactical and target use of handguns, rifles, and shotguns (at least a good
familiarization);
- conduct during contact with police;
I address most of the above (as it pertains to handguns) in every CHL class.
I can not address all these subject in depth for two reasons. 1) It’s only a
10-15 hours class, and 2) my own lack of knowledge. I really am an
amateur compared to many of you. I want (and need) more training but I
can not get it due to lack of local availability and prohibitive cost.
So feel free to add to or modify my list of training as you desire. The
amount of course material should determine the length (hours duration) of
the course.
I am not adamant about this quickly-improvised list. I am adamant about
some level of training adapted, when necessary, to teach any and all
Americans how to safely own and use firearms.
I defy anyone to prove that: 1) proper training is worse than no training or
2) that no training is better than proper training. Either way, it is a non
sequitur.
-------
The problem then is how to ensure “proper training”.
Well, the AMA (American Medical Association) ensures proper First Aid and
CPR training through the National Safety Council, the American Heart
Association, the American Red Cross, the American Safety and Health
Institute, and other organizations.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ensures students fulfill
national core curricula for various EMS-related courses.
In both cases, the courses are adequate (fill the stated intent of the course),
universal (taught the same all over America), and results-oriented (in most
cases, the student must pass both written and skills testing).
Why couldn’t NRA or some other nationally-recognized organization provide
free (or nearly free) universal firearms training to ensure a modicum of
safety and security. Medical training is NOT required by the Constitution -
firearms training is required by the Second Amendment. Therefore, the
federal government should establish a curriculum and subsidize firearms
training, in a manner to be convenient, affordable, and adequate.
Remember my suggestion states that after successful completion of training
you can carry what you want, they way you want, where you want.
So, unless you can change my mind, I advocate mandatory training. I see
no way to morally avoid it. As advocates of the Second Amendment, we
must take the mandatory training responsibility (“well-regulated”) or we do
not deserve the right (“shall not be infringed”).
